A young secondary school teacher has been found guilty of professional misconduct for forging the signatures of two other teachers on a form to prove he had completed required teaching practice.
A fitness-to-teach inquiry has recommended that the teacher be suspended from the Register of Teachers for one month.
It came after he admitted a series of five allegations of professional misconduct in relation to a form he submitted to the Teaching Council on April 27, 2022 as part of the Droichead induction process for newly qualified teachers.
They included that he had forged the signature of two other teachers in the school and applied the school stamp to the same form in circ*mstances where he should not have done so.
The teacher, who comes from the west of Ireland, also admitted declaring on the form that he had completed his teaching practice requirements and stated such information was “true and accurate” when he knew that was not the case.
Today's News in 90 seconds - 23rd May 2024
The teacher’s solicitor, Shane MacSweeney, told an inquiry held by the Teaching Council on Thursday that his client accepted that he was guilty of professional misconduct and also acknowledged that his actions represented breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers.
Neither the teacher nor the school can be identified as a result of a direction by Mary Magner, the chairperson of the Teaching Council’s disciplinary committee which oversaw the inquiry.
Counsel for the Teaching Council, Brian Gageby BL, said the inquiry had arisen from a complaint referred by the teaching profession’s regulatory body in September 2022.
Mr Gageby said a staff member of the Teaching Council had raised a query about the form submitted by the teacher because all three signatures of three different teachers on it “looked similar.”
The inquiry heard that the two other teachers had confirmed to the Teaching Council that they had not signed the form or given approval for their signature to be used on it.
The school’s principal also claimed the unauthorised use of the school stamp was “a serious matter.”
Mr Gageby said the teacher had not at the time of submitting the form completed a requirement under the Droichead process in relation to classroom observations of experienced teachers’ practice.
The inquiry heard the teacher originally claimed the use of the signatures of the other teachers had arisen out of a “miscommunication” but quickly accepted he had acted wrongly.
The committee was also informed that the teacher had apologised to the Teaching Council in November 2022 and claimed he had genuinely misunderstood some requirements of the Droichead process.
He also admitted that his behaviour in submitting the form was wrong but had “learnt my lesson”.
Mr Gageby said the Teaching Council regarded the teacher’s actions as a serious issue as it was a matter of concern if a teacher had obtained their registration through dishonesty.
The inquiry heard that the teacher, who now works in a different school, remains on the Register of Teachers with conditions.
Pleading for leniency, Mr MacSweeney said the teacher had made “an open, honest and contrite” admission about his wrongdoing at an early opportunity.
The solicitor alluded to the teacher’s relative youth and lack of maturity compared to the age and experience of most newly qualified teachers which had contributed to his “grave error of judgement.”
Mr MacSweeney said the teacher was passionate about his career and had obtained additional professional qualifications in the past two years including one diploma at a personal cost of €6,000.
He claimed the teacher had forged the signatures of the other teachers in circ*mstances where he was anxious to try and achieve his full registration as a teacher.
The inquiry heard the teacher did not feel fully supported by members of his “professional support team” at the school and had been given inaccurate information about one element of the registration process.
Mr MacSweeney said the teacher was incorrectly led to believe that he was too late to complete the classroom observation requirements and had been left “a bit in the dark” about the Droichead process.
However, he accepted that there was a clear failure on his client’s part to appreciate the gravity of his actions.
The one-month suspension recommended by the disciplinary committee, if not appealed, has to be formally confirmed by the High Court before it takes effect.
